Which also happens when folks were never here legally. Either way, how does a review of such documents help the authorities realize the guy with an all-American license or whatever should get consular treatment?
The difference is that these SS cards, licenses, etc. would be totally legit, not forged, and would be just as valid as proof of identity as anything else.
A SS card issued to someone with a temporary immigration status carries an endorsement that it is only valid with DHS authorization. That would be a big hint that the bearer might not be a U.S. citizen.
By this, no trial is necessary since criminals have no rights. But without a trial wherein his rights are afforded, how do we know he is really a criminal?
THEN once the question is settled, we strip him of most rights, because, as a criminal now, he is not entitled to most of them.
At what point do we strip criminals of their rights? Before we are certain the criminal is a criminal?
If that is the case you shouldn’t be concerned about being stripped of your rights, because we can figure out you are a criminal afterwards by an unfair process wherein you have no rights.
This is not quite as simple as you make it, Whack-a-Mole.
First, yes the Constitution is Supreme Law. But only Statutes and Treaties that do not conflict with the Constitution are likewise supreme law. Next Congress has to have a power that Texas also has, if federal law is going to trump state law. Do not forget that the Constitution has the tenth amendment which grants powers to Texas that Congress does NOT have. If congress writes a law in an area that they do not have power in, but Texas does, and Congress’ law contradicts the Texas law, the Texas law trumps the federal law per the tenth amendment.
As for any other questions, I believe that consular access is something the defendant must assert, as well as using a different lawyer than the one appointed. He can’t just remain silent on these and then claim error.
As for Germany, there is. You apply for ID cards, passports, driving licences etc. at city hall (as an interface for the appropriate agencies), and the munipialities administer all elections on the voting precinct level (the electoral register is basically an automatically generated selected data dump of the residents’ register). So the canonical record of your residence is with the municipiality.
In Spain they’ll be asked for ID, which (if provided) will indicate the nationality. You can be asked for ID at any time as well, you’re supposed to carry one if above the age of 14 but if you don’t have it with you you can show it later (exact protocol will depend on why you were asked for it and how you reacted, ranging from “arrested for suspicious behavior” to “being reminded to carry it”).
Re. TheMightyAtlas’ question:
Spain has a permanent residents’ register which is kept at the municipal level, but it’s not compulsory; you only need to register if you want to vote there or have access to other local benefits (for example, many regions provide some social services to anybody but others only to people who are registered as permanent residents in one of the regions’ townships).
There isn’t a misacrraige of justice. he was not coerced, he received counsel, he got a fair trial.
The problem is that Texas did something that peopel think was in contravention of a treaty we signed. Now Mexico can arrest Americans and execute them according to their laws without ever giving them access to American counsel.
Good points.
Good points.
[/QUOTE]
How would implementing the bill have made it illegal to execute Garcia?
IIRC, as a general rule legislation implementing non-self-executing treaties is deemed to operate retrospectively to the date of US ratification of the underlying treaty (unless the legislation itself states otherwise). Since operation of the legislation would void Garcia’s confession, he would have to be retried and the confession excluded, I think.
In a case like this, where the underlying treaty was ratified 50-odd years ago, maybe an exception would be made.
But his confession was during a non-custodial interview. If I understand it correctly (and it’s entirely possible that I don’t), the notification of his right to consular access would not have been given until he was arrested so there would have been no reason to exclude the confession. Plus, as Little Nemo said, the accused and his attorney have to raise the issue. Since they didn’t until after the trial (I think), it was their fault and not Texas’.
You’re right. I had forgotten about the timing.
The attorney part doesn’t signify, though; had he been granted consular access, he would have had a consular attorney, not a public defender, so it’s a circular argument.